Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
POPULAR YOUTUBER PEWDIEPIE has been dominating the headlines this week because of a variety of perceived anti-semitic jokes in his videos. Initially reported by the Wall Street Journal, this story exploded and ultimately lead to Pewdiepie getting dropped by Disney.
Some of our best-known comedians have called on the Government to introduce an exemption from defamation for comedy, “to allow citizens think, laugh and collaborate”. The Journal.ie itself carried a story recently about an offensive MC at a Galway comedy night.
Could comedians be at the forefront of a battle against an assault on free speech?
Should comedians be allowed to offend?
Should comedians be allowed to offend? Or should comedy be censored so that it is politically correct? Personally, I agree with the former.
I feel that there should be no enforced censorship in comedy. All censorship ever does is make the thing that people want to censor more powerful.
Many people complain about the “snowflake” generation of millennials who are offended by everything. I’d offer a different point of view. In the past, comedy has been perfectly happy to have people of a certain gender, race or sexuality as the butt of a joke. We aren’t anymore.
Listening to their audience
Comedians need to listen to the reasons people give for being offended, to take certain things on board, and to think critically about their comedy writing. This can only result in a better routine and jokes that appeal to a broader audience.
If you want to keep willingly making lazy jokes based on simplistic stereotypes, then you might have to just accept that you’re a person who deserves the hate they’re getting.
As adults, we should all be smart and aware enough to tell the difference between “this joke is annoying people for a pretty valid reason” and “this joke is annoying someone because their name is Steve and they don’t like how you pronounce Steve.”
Many comedians have weighed in on this issue over the years
For some, being mindful of what they say actually has creative benefits. Graham Linehan has his own rules for these challenges. He has said: “If the person I was making fun of contacted me, would I be able to defend it? If the answer is yes, I go ahead.”
If you’re going to offend, punch up. Take the piss out of people in power. Look at how well Saturday Night Live is doing these days.
Melissa McCarthy’s impression of Sean Spicer is hilarious because it both points out the absurdity of the man, and how the Trump administration can’t deal with any sort of criticism. What would ever be the point in using comedy to punch down or to bully instead? No point whatsoever.
You can joke about anything
David Mitchell found himself in hot water a number of years ago for an Anne Frank joke involving a drum kit, which he defended as “satirising the situation they were in”.
Mitchell himself didn’t write the joke, but defended it saying: “The tragic circumstances give it an edge and make the audience more likely to laugh, but that’s not the same as finding the Holocaust funny.”
I agree with Mitchell. You can joke about anything, but it’s the target of the joke that matters.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I don’t know what’s worse? How cruel people can be to animals or how lenient the sentences for cruelty are.
€200 what a joke!
Another lenient sentence. It’s a fupping joke!
How can it be another Lenient sentence if its the first conviction under the Animal Health and Welfare Act??
First conviction under this act, you don’t think there have been convictions of animal cruelty in the past? You’re some sap…….
Keith, it clearly states above that she is the first successful prosecution under the Animal Health and Welfare act, where do I state that there have been no conviction of animal cruelty before this act was inacted?
I have copied the part that states this in the article above for you.
“McGranaghan pleaded guilty in April and became he first successful prosecution under the Animal Health and Welfare Act.”
Wow, we’ll done for being able to copy and paste, I commend you. You implied that it was not a lenient sentence just because it was the first conviction under that particular act. The simple fact is there have been many convictions of animal cruelty in this country but because the laws are so crap the sentences are pathetic. This is why it is another lenient sentence which was my point. Go troll somewhere else please, you’re boring me.
Am I a Troll for not agreeing with you Keith? Or it it that you don’t like to hear the truth. The truth of it is, she pled guilty under new laws and got punished. The Ispca are satisfied with the outcome and don’t seem to be baying for the defendants blood like some people.
What would you have liked to happen to the Defendent?
Truth, what truth have you spoken? You say in another comment that she will not be able to do it again. She has been banned for 4 years. The trauma she caused that dog will stay with it it’s entire life, not just 4 years. She should never be allowed to have pets at all as she obviously does not care for them. The ISPCA said they are satisfied with the conviction, it doesn’t say they are satisfied with the sentence and I would seriously doubt they are. I know anyone that works with caring for animals would not be satisfied with just a 4 year ban and a measly fine. Now go away you little tw*t and annoy someone else!
Keith, not really sure where I said she will not be able to do it again, i did however say she would not be allowed, just as she already was not allowed to cause trauma to her dog. All we know about this woman is one brief glimpse into her life. So again I ask, what would you like the sentence to have been? And your attempts at bullying by all the name calling does you or your argument no favours.
You are a sad little man, night night.
A photo of the other bitch would have been nice.
So she’s allowed do it all again in 4 years? The dog all be traumatised for the rest of her life! Hopefully the poor little thing finds a good, suitable home now.
Shane, I think you will find that she will still not be allowed to do it all again…..
And that poor dog probably still loved her.
Humans are truly the most treacherous creatures on the planet.
God almighty, how could anyone treat a dog like that? Disgusting.
It’s a shame this woman didn’t come up before a judge that loved dogs…then she might get a sentance imposed that actually fits the vile crime she commited. .Poor dog…shameful excuse of a human .
A ban for 4 years? That’s it? And 600 euro.
Or justice system is so messed up. No faith in it at all.
She sold be made live like that poor dog for 6 months. That would teach her a lesson.
Hang on, what do you need to do to get a lifetime ban? Disgraceful lenience.
200 quid what a joke
Anyone who treats another living creature like this is probably a danger to people too.
the more i hear of cases like this the more i prefer dogs to humans
What’s the odds she has kids??
Facebook article “Bring Rex Home” its a shame the Galway SPCA can’t do the right thing…
Banned for four years??? Tramp should be left in a box and treated the same way she treated the dog. €200???? What a joke, almost the same fine you’d pay for fare dodging on a bus. No wonder the world thinks we’re backwards if this is the punishment we dole out.
Why not ban her for life! Her pathetic attitude won’t improve in 4 years. She should be banned from havin kids to by the looks of it..
The problem is that a lot of these judges are just jumped up solicitors with little training in jurisprudence, they get nominated because of their ties to the big political parties.
My ol’ Daddy used to warn us that if brought to court always to have a solicitor otherwise you would be breaking the chain and not employing the judges son or daughter or whatever and that was just asking for trouble……
The legal gravy train must be kept going at all costs
what an absolute disgrace €200 should have been found €2000 minimum at least she’d never do it again in that case, as for not owning an animal for 4 years sure who’s going to know if she does or not???
All she had to do is bring the dog to a shelter
The fine was just about the cheapest price you would pay for a puppy from a ‘dealer’ and that is no deterrent at all. Custodial sentences must be imposed and meaningful ones at that.
Bitch
What she is spelt with a capital C
Good few lashes of the dogs lead for the two legged bitch
Should be banned for life the b****
How can people be so cruel to do that to a poor animal…what did she expect would happen? If the ISPCA hadn’t been tipped off, that dog would have suffered an awful death. All she had to do was bring him to a shelter if she didn’t want to keep him. Stupid woman
Is this the same person? Apparently has anger issues: http://www.donegaldaily.com/2013/12/20/student-has-anger-issues-exacerbated-by-drink/
Poor creature. The lady in question seems to be a young mum, maybe teen, with a little boy. I feel for them all. Obviously she was struggling, with circumstances exactly we can never know. I’d imagine that for a lot of young mums 200E is a whole week’s food gone. Animals deserve to be treated with kindness, but so do young people who are struggling to keep their head above water. Some of the comments here amount to nothing more than online bullying. The animal is safe and well, hopefully the owner is too.
Well said Annemarie…
No… there’s no excuse for this. Decency and empathy for other creatures isn’t something you require money for. many a time I struggle and have struggled but I have never left my animals locked in a room without food or water. As far as this ‘person’ goes..whether her future has animals or not there’s no cure for being a c * nt
Annemarie what was stopping her finding another home for the dog or taking it to a welfare group? What she did was inexcusable
Depression, intellectual disability, fleeing a domestic abuse situation etc – who of us can ever know the full circumstances of this story Sarah? There could be 101 tragic explanations behind her behaviour. There are never excuses for treating a creature poorly, but there are usually explanations as to why it happens. It’s also suicide awareness month, so let’s remember to be kind to each other. Obviously, anyone who is living like this (I’m referring to the kitchen pictures in the article) is not in a good emotional place. And yet there are people here using language like c*unt and b*itch to refer to the named lady. I’m an animal-lover and a dog-owner but I really don’t feel it’s useful or fair even to judge a situation I know nothing about! 200euro is a lot for any young parent, so the punishment has been doled out. Shouldn’t the discussion be more about animal welfare and responsibility, and less about thrashing the individual in the story?
Annemarie, it is far easier for people to paint her as a monster than think that in reality it have been almost anyone who this happened to. People are not perfect, they make mistakes, and looking at the house picture above, where we see a food bag, small applianes, coats etc. you would have to wonder did she leave in a hurry for some reason, not that it excuses what happened, but it is important to have all the facts, which we don’t have. As you said mental illness could be playing a part in all this. But people want to ignore that and only see her as a monster…
You got to assume, based on the lenient sentence, that there is more to the story. Who abandons a property? I hope that she and the child are okay. And so lovely to think this animal is getting a second chance somewhere safe! Well done to the ISPCA for doing their job.
are u actually for real..?? or are u a friend of the callous bitch in question here. she left a dog to die of hunger and starvation and u feel sorry she got fined 200euro? the lesson is quite simple..do NOT take on the responsibility of an animal if u are too immature, have insufficient resources and cannot commit to the life span of said PET. spare your pity and your sorrow for animals who are treated like this, not the low lives responsible. rant over.
For real, and haven’t a clue who she is! I’m just not naturally an angry person I suppose. It is possible to feel empathy for both the animal AND the humans involved. Feel free to rant away :)
€200. !!! it should have been €2000 and it should have been awarded to people who offer shelter to unwanted animals .. and she should have been sent to jail for 2 years
Our *
If you want to correct someones spelling, try replying to the comment. You look silly down here with your Our*. #grammernazi
have your say